Phase 7 · Pass the examination

The letter to the client

Ten marks for proposing amendments to the brief that reduce material usage, in a letter or email.

Who this is for:Chartered Member candidates ·Incorporated-Member candidates

Ten marks, half an hour, and one of the few sections where the examiners tell you plainly that they care more about your technical grasp than your prose.

What section 1b asks

Institution of Structural Engineers

Suggest amendments to the brief in order to reduce material usage.
Most questions specify design constraints from the original brief that must be maintained, and you must respect these.
You are expected to critically evaluate the brief and propose amendments to the layout, rather than fundamentally changing the function of the structure.
You should be capable of explaining the impact of your proposals on the operation of the structure and on the rest of the design.
The examiner focuses more on your grasp of the technical issues than on the quality of your written English.
It may be written as either a letter or an email, and you may reference sketches.

Section 1b — professional communication: 10marksAmendments to the brief that reduce material usage, as a letter or email.
Section 1b — professional communication: 10marks

From Exam Guidance and Instructions — Chartered Membership Examination, Institution of Structural Engineers.

The three traps

Changing the function. The brief is a building or a bridge that does a job. Proposing that it do a different job is not an amendment, it is a refusal. Amend the layout — grid, spans, geometry, levels, zoning — not the purpose.

Breaking a stated constraint. Most questions name constraints that must be maintained. Proposing something that violates one is an immediate loss, and it signals that the brief was not read carefully. Before writing, list the constraints and check every proposal against them.

Writing a letter with no engineering in it. The examiner is reading for technical grasp. A polite, well-structured letter proposing nothing specific scores poorly; a plainly-written one proposing three quantified changes scores well.

What a good amendment looks like

Each proposal needs three things:

01The change — specific. Not "reduce spans" but "reduce the main span from 15 m to 12 m by adding a line of columns on grid C".
02The material saving — the mechanism, and a magnitude if you can. Shallower beams, less reinforcement, smaller foundations, a lighter frame.
03The impact — honestly stated. What it costs the client in flexibility, layout, headroom or operation. An amendment presented as free is not credible, and the instructions specifically ask you to explain the impact on operation and on the rest of the design.

Three well-made proposals beat six thin ones.

Format and tone

Either a letter or an email is acceptable. Head it properly, address the client, and keep it short — this is thirty minutes of a seven-hour day.

Write as an engineer advising a client, not as a student answering a question. That means: recommend, explain the consequence, and be clear about what you need them to decide. Sketches may be referenced, and a small marked-up plan often explains a layout change faster than a paragraph.

Section 1b

Worth doing

List the brief's stated constraints first, and check every proposal against them
Propose specific, quantified layout changes
State the material saving and the mechanism behind it
State the impact on the client's operation honestly
Reference a sketch where it explains a layout change quickly

Avoid

Change what the structure is for
Breach a constraint the question told you to maintain
Write at length about how important sustainability is
Propose changes with no engineering consequence attached
Spend an hour on ten marks

Fictional example

Two amendments, same brief

Fictional example — a distribution warehouse where the brief requires a clear internal height of 12 m and column-free loading aisles

Weaker

"We would recommend reducing the spans and using less material where possible, which would improve the sustainability of the scheme and reduce cost. We could also consider alternative materials with lower embodied carbon."

Stronger

"Two changes would cut material significantly while keeping your 12 m clear height and column-free aisles. First, moving the office block from the centre of the north elevation to a separate single-storey annexe removes the transfer structure over it — about 40 tonnes of steel — at the cost of roughly 200 m² of additional footprint. Second, if the racking layout can accept a 24 m rather than a 30 m portal span, the frame weight falls by around a fifth; this would add one line of columns outside the aisles, which I understand your operation can accommodate, but I would want to confirm that with your logistics team before proceeding."

Why — The second version proposes two specific changes, states the mechanism and rough magnitude of the saving, respects both stated constraints, and is honest about what each costs the client — including flagging the one that needs their decision. The first proposes nothing that could be acted on.